No Explanation from David Rucki and His Band of Judicial Misfits

                                                          (Judge Phillip Kanning)

Judges continue to make curious decisions with little or no explanation in the Rucki case.

Judge Phillip Kanning Mysteriously Disappears

The most recent update is that Judge Phillip Kanning is no longer assigned to the case.

This, on its own, is not news, but the circumstances leading up to and including his departure raise numerous red flags.

Kanning was assigned to the case even though he is a retired judge.

Sandra Grazzini-Rucki filed a motion to stop her license from being taken for back due child support in October 2018.

Kanning and the court sat on it until late January when a hearing was suddenly called for February 12, 2019.

But Kanning, though he was assigned, would not preside over the hearing, that’s because he was out of country on vacation.

Heidi Carstensen is the Court Administrator for the 1^st Judicial District in Minnesota, where the David Rucki Vs. Sandra Grazzini-Rucki divorce has played out; she told me as much days before the hearing.

The hearing would instead be presided over by Judge Kathleen Gearin, also a retired judge.

Some time after the hearing, Kanning’s name was removed as the assigned judge, and a clerk at the 1^st Judicial District confirmed he is no longer assigned but had no more information.

I also left a voicemail for Jean Baldwin, the Operations Manager for the 1^st Judicial District Court, but she did not respond to my voicemail.

I sent separate emails to Baldwin and Carstensen, which were also left unreturned.

It’s not clear how or why his name was removed if he was out of the country.

Judge Kathleen Gearin Can’t be Bothered to Issue an Order

Meanwhile, the court hearing on February 12, 2019, turned into chaos.

Sandra Grazzini-Rucki filed several requests to have the hearing be postponed.

The judge never actually officially ruled on that request; worse yet, the court may have backdated a letter to cover it all up.

According to the court record, on February 07, 2019, there is an entry for “Request for Continuance needing approval.”

Ruck i Docket by on Scribd

But no order has been entered on this request.

Instead, the court sent a letter  Grazzini-Rucki dated February 8, 2019, but this date is dubious.

That’s because Grazzini-Rucki did not receive it until approximately a week after the hearing.

The letter is dubious in other ways; it wasn’t written by Gearin but by Baldwin on Gearin’s behalf.

The letter notes, “Per the instructions of Judge Kathleen Gearin, as she is involved in an unrelated hearing and unable to draft an order.”

Think about that, she is supposed to be retired; are they really saying the retired judge has such a busy schedule that she can’t “draft an order?”

I posed that question and others to Baldwin, Carstensen, and Gearin.

Also on this email were the four press people for the Minneosta Courts- Lissa Finne, Alyssa Roberson-Riems, Beau Berentsen, and Kyle Christopherson- and Jeff Shorba, the Court Administrator for the Minnesota Court System as a whole.

None responded to the email.

Baldwin’s letter continues, “Your request for a continuance has been denied but Judge Gearin is allowing you to appear via telephone.”

Because Grazzini-Rucki did not receive the letter until after the hearing she missed it.

The hearing appears to be a dud regardless. Lisa Elliott, David Rucki’s attorney, also needed to appear by phone and Judge Gearin would only say, “Taken under advisement,” also entered on February 12, 2019.

There is no update and it’s not clear what Gearin could do.

This case is being appealed with motions being filed in the appeals court simultaneously in which the parties are arguing the same issues.

Any decision by Gearin would be subjugated to the decision in the appeal’s court.

The appeal’s court is involved because rather than ruling on her motion right away, which is customary in district court, they waited months, with Grazzini-Rucki filing in appeal’s court subsequent to that.

Multi-Millionaire David Rucki Gets Benefits In Program for Low Income

Even more remarkably, I’ve recently discovered David Rucki receives aid under Minnesota Cares which is described as, “a health care program for Minnesotans with low incomes.” 

In his divorce, he received an estate which included 100% of a multi-million dollar business, four homes, and nine classic cars.

He is currently involved in at least two other civil actions trying to get money for pain and suffering related to his two oldest daughters running away and being hidden by Doug and Gina Dahlen from April 19, 2013 to November 2015.

He has received money as a result of Gina Dahlen and Doug Dahlen pleading guilty and Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and Dede Evavold being convicted.

Below is an aerial shot of one of his homes.

Minnesota's Wealthiest welfare recipient RUCKI second of 4 homes. 5 beds 2.5 bath. All at Mn taxpayers expense. He claims poverty in court, per court docs. #grazzinirucki #evavold pic.twitter.com/H1N8qyYI8N

— Jane Johnson (@johnsonmedia2) June 8, 2018

Here is a photo inside his long-time occupied home in Lakeville, Minnesota, an affluent suburb of Minneapolis.

I asked several people about this.

I asked members of the Dakota County Prosecutors office, Monica Jensen, the public affairs officer and James Backstrom the prosecutor, and neither responded.

I also asked Elliott, who also did not respond.

I asked members of the Minnesota Department of Human Services, which administers the program.

I asked Katie Bauer, the communication’s director for MDHS. I asked Shaneen Moore, the director of the Child Support Division in Children and Family Services for the Minnesota Department of Human Services. 

I also asked Julie Erickson, a supervisor of the Child Support Division  in Minnesota.  None of these folks responded either.

Rucki is simultaneously chasing after his ex-wife for back due child support.

In the last child support order, the judge, Jan Davidson, estimated that David Rucki makes $10,000 per month; she only estimated because she issued an order without forcing David Rucki to submit income documents. [

Grazzini Rucki Fof Cs Order... by on Scribd

"The obligee (David Rucki) applied for public assistance and currently receives medical assistance." Davidson said in the order.


This would mean that he is simultaneously defrauding MDHS, while using the assistance to support his child support argument.

I also left a message with the MDHS media department.

I received a call back from Tammy, from the Minnesota Department of Human Services, who said she worked with Minnesota Care.

She could not help me, she said, due to privacy issues but said I could file a fraud complaint with the MDHS, which I did.

More information on filing a fraud complaint with MDHS can be found here.

That David Rucki is committing fraud is self-evident- find more information here- whether or not anyone in MDHS will take it seriously is another matter. 

Everyone in Dakota County Is Taking an Interest in the Rucki Child Support Matter

 

(Minnesota Judge Philip Kanning)

The Rucki child support matter has gone from bizarre to downright comical as everyone from the County attorney, to the County prosecutor, and numerous judges have weighed in on a matter of $215 per month to be paid out to a multi-millionaire with four homes.

When last we left off, Minnesota Appeals Court Judge Edward Cleary had rejected Sandra "Sam" Grazzini-Rucki's appeal as defective on December 14, 2018.

He gave Ms. Grazzini-Rucki six business days, or December 26, 2018, to file an appropriate appeal even though he was out of his chambers until December 27.

Meanwhile, in October, Ms. Grazzini-Rucki filed a separate motion to reinstate her license, which the county took great pains to suspend, after she fell behind, with the District Court.

That motion sat untouched until late January, and only after a series of phone calls did the District court schedule a hearing for February 12, 2019.

Her child support case has been handled by Magistrate (a junior judge) Judge Jan Davidson, but Judge Davidson will not hear this motion.

According to Heidi Carstenson, the court administrator for the Minnesota judiciary, this is because Grazzini-Rucki's motion deals with more than child support.

This appears to be because David Rucki, Grazzini-Rucki's ex-husband, refuses to allow her license to be reinstated, but when he fell behind on child support, he was treated far differently.

Early on, in a hearing on August 17, 2011, when Grazzini-Rucki had physical custody of the five children, her then attorney, Kathleen Graves noted, "Mr. Rucki is not paying any child support, isn't paying any spousal maintenance, isn't paying any kind of support to the children whatsoever."

This was heard in front of Judge David Knutson, who would later award David Rucki sole custody and 100% of the couple's multi-million dollar estate.

Knutson never sanctioned Rucki for his failure to pay child support and even ordered that his license not be taken when he fell behind.

Now, not only is the court proceeding with sanctions against Sandra Grazzini-Rucki but David Rucki is not only being represented by his attorney, Lisa Elliott, but by the county, in the form of James Donehower, the Dakota County attorney, who has filed a brief in conjunction with Elliott on David Rucki's behalf. See the brief below.

donehower by on Scribd

I asked Donehower, Katie Bauer, a public affairs officer for the Minnesota Department of Human Services, and Melissa Froehle, a staff attorney with Minnesota DHS, why the county had an interest in helping with this case.

James Backstrom, the Dakota County Prosecutor, responded.

Dakota County has received your January 29, 2019 telephone inquiry regarding Minnesota Court of Appeals case A18-1721. This e-mail is the County’s response to your inquiry. I understand that you are asking two related questions: (1) Why did the County file a brief in this case? and (2) What is the County’s interest in this matter?

State and federal laws prevent Dakota County from discussing or disclosing the details of a specific child support matter with someone who is not a party to that action.  Therefore, this communication provides general information regarding the role pubic authorities (Dakota County in this case) have in child support enforcement (IV-D services) matters under Minnesota and federal law.

Dakota County is a public authority responsible for providing child support enforcement services. Provision of child support services by the public authority is required under 42 U.S.C section 654. When providing these services, Dakota County is a separate and independent party to any child support related legal action, which includes proceedings in appellate courts. The Dakota County Attorney’s Office represents only the public authority, Dakota County, and does not represent either parent. See, Minn. Stat. section 518A.47

Under Minnesota Statutes section 518A.49 (b), the County is a party in interest in each case where there has been an assignment of child support.  In other cases, the County can and does intervene in a case to ensure that child support orders are obtained and enforced which provides for an appropriate and accurate level of child support.  The County’s obligation to perform these duties extends also to appellate matters.

We will not be responding to any further questions concerning this matter.  

Only the county knows why they did not help Sandra Grazzini-Rucki when David Rucki failed to pay approximately $10,000 per month in child support and maintenance in 2011. 

Meanwhile, since the issue is now more than child support, a District Judge will have to hear the matter on February 12. 

The District Court judge assigned to the Rucki divorce now is Judge Phillip Kanning, but he won't hear it. 

According to Carstenson, that's because Kanning is on a three month vacation which makes sense since he is a retired judge. 

As a result, another judge was assigned to hear this motion, Judge Kathleen Gearin. Gearin is no stranger to corrupt rulings in the Rucki case; in June, she put Dede Evavold in jail for four days because Evavold had posted blogs on her blog, Red Herring Alert, which offended David Rucki and his attorney; they complained and Gearin had Evavold jailed. 

Coincidentally or not, Gearin, like Kanning, is a retired judge as well. 

Meanwhile, the appeal continues to languish without a ruling even after Judge Cleary gave Sandra Grazzini-Rucki six business days to complete it. 

In August, Judge Davidson issued a bizarre ruling ordering Grazzini-Rucki to pay $215 per month in child support. 

The ruling was bizarre because Davidson did not require either parent to provide income documents and guessed, called imputing income, the income for both. She set David Rucki at $10,000 per month and set Sandra Grazzini-Rucki at $1,449 per month. 

Grazzini-Rucki is now considered a six time felon with little job prospects, so that $1,449 is much higher than she actually earns. 

David Rucki has four homes including the one below. 

Minnesota's Wealthiest welfare recipient RUCKI second of 4 homes. 5 beds 2.5 bath. All at Mn taxpayers expense. He claims poverty in court, per court docs. #grazzinirucki #evavold pic.twitter.com/H1N8qyYI8N

— Jane Johnson (@johnsonmedia2) June 8, 2018

I asked Backstrom and Dakota County Prosecutor's press person, Monica Jensen, why they have championed David Rucki in his quest to collect on $215 per month but sat by while David Rucki refused to pay approximately $10,000 per month (what Davidson now claims is his monthly income) in child support and alimony, but received no response.

Though she has not seen any of her five children since early 2013, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki's parental rights have not been terminated; coincidentally or not, if they had, she would not be required to pay child support.